You've made the equivalent of that statement for your side. Now you prove it.
google.com
THe situation here is more complex than it first appears. Anecdotally, there is plenty of evidence. Multiple public gatherings have ended up eventually prohibiting alcohol to reduce violence.
"There is better evidence for a causal relationship between alcohol and violence than many we rely on in the social sciences."
Dr Robert Nash Parker, University of California.
aphru.ac.nz
A more neutral study:
There is a widespread popular belief, in parts of Europe and elsewhere, that 'alcohol causes violence'. In discussions of public disorder, violent crime, domestic violence and football hooliganism, drinking is frequently cited as a primary cause of the problem, and controls on alcohol consumption proposed as a solution.
These rather simplistic assumptions persist, and continue to influence government policy and legislation, despite the increasing body of scientific evidence showing that the relationship between alcohol consumption and aggressive or violent behaviour is not a direct causal link, but rather a complex interaction of biochemical, psychological, situational and cultural factors. The purpose of this paper is to provide a clear, concise and accessible summary of the research on this relationship, the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the available evidence, and the main implications for public policy and education.
.............................................................
From the research evidence available, we can conclude that there is no direct causal relationship between alcohol and violence. The probability of aggression is increased when the effects of alcohol-induced cognitive impairment are amplified or exacerbated by both the characteristics of the immediate situation and cultural expectations that drinking causes aggression. Where the immediate social context is non-aggressive and where cultural beliefs and norms inhibit aggression, drinkers are highly unlikely to become aggressive.
These conclusions indicate that attempts to restrict consumption of alcohol are likely to be unsuccessful in preventing or reducing problems of disorder and violence. A more effective approach would involve measures designed to improve the management of drinking environments and, even more importantly, educational measures designed to preserve and promote more positive beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol.
Alcohol availability is closely related to violent assaults. Communities and neighborhoods that have more bars and liquor stores per capita experience more assaults.
marininstitute.org
What gets ignored here (perhaps conveniently) is that liquor seem to concentrate in economically depressed, crime-ridden areas. There used to be an urban area about 10 miles from here where serveral blocks consisted of mostly liquor stores. Interestingly, that area was known as the "Demilitarized Zone"; the rest of the town it was an edge of was far worse.
At the same time, you can argue this all you want. You most likely know yourself people who ordinarily aren't bad, but who, if they get some liquor in them, soon turn to argument and violence.
We have several here on this site. I'm sure you know some of the posters I refer to.
While we're at it, you have repeatedly claimed that, once a person has any dose of a drug, however small seemingly, they lose control and go on to a point where they are raging monsters. Let me point out 2 problems with your statement:
(1) you have provided exactly zero evidence to back it.
(2) alcohol is a drug; why doesn't that statement apply to it too? |
